BIJU RAMESH Vs. INTELLIGENCE OFFICER SQUAD NO I AGRICULTURAL INCOME-TAX AND SALES TAX THIRUVANANTHAPURAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE matter arises under the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. THE petition is an abkari contractor. He is an assessee to sales tax under the Act. THEre was an inspection in the business premises of the petitioner by the Intelligence Squad, Thiruvananthapuram on June 6, 1988 and they verified the physical stock of certain items found there. Later, the Intelligence Officer, Squad No. I, Thiruvananthapuram (first respondent herein) verified the accounts of the petitioner with reference to the physical stock found on inspection and issued a notice to the petitioner stating that he has failed to maintain true and complete accounts of his business during the year 1988-89 for which he is liable for penal action under section 46 of the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963. He was also called upon to show cause why prosecution steps should not be initiated against him. At that point of time the petitioner approached the first respondent with an application for compounding the offence departmentally under section 47 of the Act, wherein he has offered to compound the offence pointed out in the notice for a sum not exceeding Rs. 50,000. THE first respondent accepted the said offer and issued an order dated October 31, 1988 to the following effect : "the offence under section 46, viz. , violation of section 27 committed during the year 1988-89 by M/s. Biju Ramesh and M. K. Prabhakaran, Group Nos. II and IV of Thiruvananthapuram Range, Thiruvananthapuram as directed by the inspection of June 6, 1988 is compounded on payment of Rs. 50,000 (rupees fifty thousand only) paid as per Receipt No. 173346 dated October 31, 1988 (exhibit P1 ).

(2.) LATER on February 14, 1989 the petitioner filed a revision against exhibit P1 order before the Deputy Commissioner of Agriculture Income-tax and Sales Tax, Thiruvananthapuram, wherein he has challenged the amount of compounding fee fixed by the first respondent on the ground that the maximum compounding fee that can be fixed in the case is only Rs. 5,000. The Deputy Commissioner dismissed the revision petition. In second revision the Board of Revenue also affirmed exhibit P1 order. It is against these orders of the respondents that the petitioner has filed this writ petition.

(3.) HEARD learned Special Government Pleader for Taxes also. He has pointed out that the irregularities detected in the inspection conducted on June 6, 1988 are very serious, in that it revealed shortage of arrack to the tune of 3,152 litres and also unaccounted sales of arrack for the period from May 27, 1988 to May 31, 1988 to the tune of 2,834 litres. He accordingly submitted that the irregularities pointed out are very serious and the provisions of section 47 (1) (a) of the Act are attracted in such a case. He further submitted that exhibit P1 order was passed strictly in conformity with the offer made by the petitioner in the compounding application and that once the offer made by the petitioner has been accepted by the department by issuing an order and that order has been acted upon by the petitioner by remitting compounding fee by fixed in such order, it is not open to the petitioner thereafter to challenge the said order before high authorities. Learned Government Pleader also relied on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Sree Sastha Trading Co. v. State of Kerala (1991) 2 KLT 875 and also the decision in Chandrahasan v. State of Kerala [1995] 96 STC 21; (1994) 2 KLT 222. He accordingly submitted that there is no merit in this original petition and the same has to be dismissed with costs.